Does that refer to the income of Stansel's household then, not IMR's?

It is, under the Spoiler Tag, taken from the "Who's Who" thread.

-M&P

I meant the part about the irregularities with the membership records.

Except to everyone but you that is a non issue, it hasn't even been raised in the legal proceedings.

It does illuminate the way business is and was done at IMR though.

It's an issue. It is not, however, an issue we have a lot of hard data on - me tricking Kid Chameleon into saying something stupid, while moderately gratifying, is not productive. Neither is six pages of arguments over one word.

And as far as Jason and the freelancer pool goes, he's right - the pool was shrinking a long time before he came, so it's not like he came along and everybody got out of the pool. It was generally small enough that the dramatic absence or alienation of several of the more experienced freelancers and their replacement by people like David Hill is a big deal, at least in my mind.

The freelancer pool is my big issue. I know Jason has done everything in his power to get good writers and get people who know the game, there is a difference between people who pour their soul into SR and those who are just pulling in writing credits. I don't know the new freelancers all that well yet, so I can't say which side of the fence they come down on. I really have no choice but to trust that they're in it for the right reasons. Until I don't. Truthfully though, there are a couple of new writers that I am absolutely optimistic about and some not so much, but thats the way its always been with SR. Hell, I was one of those guys folks really weren't optimistic about at first. And they told me about it.

All that being said, I still believe SR is hurt by not having folks like Bobby around. No matter what feelings were wounded in this debate, you can't deny the impact he's had on SR. The amount of work and research he puts into what he writes is legendary. We need to find a way to fix this.

In regards to CGL, i'd love to see a business-side comparison to FanPro and even FASA. It feels like we've been going through this kind of stuff (late or missed payments, schedule and shipping delays) through many iterations of SR.

That's because we have been. All three companies had their problems with payments and release schedules. I know I experienced the same problems writing under FASA, FanPro, and CGL.

I can't really speak to anything more in-depth than that. CGL's current situation is unique for its own reasons, notably all the alleged goings-on with Loren and the company bank account.

Which is important, as it is easier to perpetuate a massive fraud in an environment with poor corporate governance. If the actual owners are not registered as the owners and do not watch the books, I'd say the corporate governance was catastrophically bad.

EDIT: Removed because it didn't add anything to the speculation and many others have added pointless posts before me.

Sorry.

There were freelancers who said they'd like to work for the next company to come along. And there were people (non-freelancers) who tried to get a money pool together to buy the license from Topps. One thread of discussion was entirely unrelated to the other.

And I will not speculate on the subliminal mind control messages hidden in the SR texts. All I will say is that it has nothing to do with your "vast freelancer conspiracy" theory.

Honest.

Ixnay on the indmay ontrolcay!

Jason H.

Whoops! My bad.

But unless you show how, advantageous design occurs whenever readers underestimate nuances. Plus, remember, old devils use conspiracy to survive.

I'm under NDA. I cannot comment on such speculation.

@=)

Thank you for the link. I tried to google it but my search skills weren't up to snuff. I am surprised that more is not being made of this. If Sandstorm is one of the companies competing for the licenses, then this revelation casts everything in a new light. For one thing, it would cast a great deal of suspicion on Jennifer Harding's claims. No longer would she just be a disgruntled employee, but rather a self-interested player. It also would suggest that Stansel-Garner's actions (like taking all of CGL's financial records with him) were motivated by more than spite.

Simmer down there, Pippin. As much as I enjoy you taking the time off of defending Loren L. Coleman and Randall Bills to cast aspersions on the people that willingly left the company for their own reasons, there's been nothing to indicate these guys are even edging for any of the licenses.

Put it another way: is it really that damn peculiar that a group of people with a history of working together in the gaming industry, now out of a job, would maybe decide to start up another gaming company?

if this all blows over, how high would the probability be that the colemans and the bills would start something new together?

With all due respect and no malice to anyone involved this thread has been absolutely chock full of rampant speculation personal aspersions, accusations, etc. Some of you have problems with Coleman, I get that, some of you have problems with Bills, I get that, some of you have problems with Jason, I get that less but sure. BUt you want you want certain people to be sacrosanct? Yea whatever.

That is why I was very careful with the qualifiers used in the last post. You might want to re-read it. I try to be clear about speculative comments, but just in case it wasn't clear: The existence of Sandstorm and the involvement of said people is verifiable fact (see link). It has been alleged that they are competing for the license, which is unsubstantiated.

not particularly. No offense to Sandstorm or it's staff, but I think it's a bad idea to have gamers/writers running the business side of things. That goes for IMR/CGL too btw - and any game company in general.

Though I do find it interesting that Closet Nerd Games announced their acquisition by Sandstorm three days before Sandstorm officially existed. Not that it means anything important - just shows that Sandstorm was active before it's incorporation date.

I'm sorry, was that the same post where you claimed David Stansel had stolen company documents and called Jen a liar?

Why yes it was!

Let me help you out, AH.



I actually spent a good deal of time looking that over to make sure I wouldn't be called out for pushing speculation as fact. Oh well.

I believe he was just asking that people look at the formation of a gaming company by people who worked together at a gaming company in a logical way. You know, like maybe they like making games and work well together?

Now if you're pulling for Team Coleman to come out on top I could see you having a problem with the former members of IMR banding together to form their own company. For one it makes it seem like there may be another company with more experience and a better track record writing for the game that you are licensed to publish. Not what you want to see around license renewal time, I'm sure. For my part I wish them the best of luck and hope that they make more money at their endeavor than they did unemployed; which as I understand it is the trick to master in that industry.

You know that post unequivocally states that Stansel stole the documents right? Which AH said it didn, and you said it didn't.

Quote here



There is no actual proof he stole anything - this is straight up pushing speculation as fact. I suggest your proofing (like mine) needs more work.

Anyway, IF sandstorm is competing for the license, it means that either

A) Coleman is a fraudster; or

B) The investors in Sandstorm LLC are comedy stupid.

Because Sandstorm would only compete if they knew for sure (and as insiders they are well positioned too know) that the Topps audit was going to show that Coleman had defrauded Topps. Because as a business, I doubt Topps would move the license from someone with a track record of success (what Coleman is if he's not a fraud), to an unknown quantity - unless said track record was siphoning their profits.

May I state for the record that David Stansel did not remove or destroy any of CGL's financial records. Copies of all electronic records/books were turned over to CGL's CPA prior to my departure (which was after David left), were turned over to the new bookkeeper, were turned over to numerous owners, and were left on a secure backup system to which the owners had access.

All physical files were left in large locked filing cabinets, and the locks were changed after my departure so that only Randall Bills and the new bookkeeper had keys. David did not take any physical files from those cabinets.

Prior to my arrival and employment to reconstruct CGL's books, David did not have access to financial records or documents. Only Loren Coleman had access to those. David was copied on invoices sent electronically - but only copied on them. The originals went elsewhere. David kept a backup copy of those that he was cc'd on, but, let's be honest here, if the previous bookkeeper/Loren Coleman was deleting those instead of using proper document storage, is that David's fault? Especially when he was specifically not told or informed of how the books were kept? (Mind you, since David's departure, no one from CGL has requested any copies of back up documents that CGL may have destroyed... from either David or myself...)

As for myself, I left for the reasons I stated - I was told by Loren Coleman to hide foreign royalties from Topps. I was told by Randall that if I could not work with Loren, I should leave. I had numerous job interviews prior to accepting a position with Sandstorm, fyi, and chose to work with Sandstorm because I believed in the vision and the sound business plan that was presented to me. I also did not have any information on Sandstorm, nor had I been told it was forming, when I left CGL. I was only approached well after my last day at CGL. While I don't believe this really needs to be stated, having my ethics attacked on these forums makes me want to clarify the timeline that was involved. Sandstorm's mission statement, from the time it was formed (which was well before I was approached or aware it was forming), was to operate with the highest level of ethics.

Fair enough, I should have said "alleged actions."

Deleted post. Ignore me..ninjad by Tiger eyes.

Not questioning your ethics, just wondering about your interests. Is Sandstorm bidding for either or both the Shadowrun and Battletech licenses from Topps?

Forgive the ignorance, but if there is another well qualified company competing for the license isn't that a good thing for the fans? Heck, isn't it a good thing for the current and former freelancers? [EDIT: See below] Market forces and all that...

Also, hypothetically speaking (this is a speculative thread) who of the current and former freelancers would go to work for a company like Sandstorm Productions? (Not necessarily them, we don't know for sure if they're actually bidding on the license, but a company like them...)

I would say "yes".

That would be the height of foolishness for Sandstorm, or ANYONE, to confirm that at this point in time.

-M&P

You misunderstand while I personally will not believe and would not advance the the theory the Sandstorm folks have an kind of duplicity involved in their dealings or the number of people who's name has been tracked through the mud repeatedly in the course of this whole deal makes it functionally inevitable that such an accusation would occur. I'm going to quote Tom Paine here because I seldom pass up a chance to do so:



The subject matter is different but the context is oddly parallel in my mind. Basically a lot of people over the course of this thread have made accusations they shouldn't have, broken trusts they should have, or stood silent when others slandered or the like.. A lot of people, myself included frankly, have said things they regret in the benefit of hindsight making people like Tiger, Bishop, and others look brilliant by their silence. What I'm trying to say, even if I didn't lay it out as clear as I should have, was that in such an environment how can anyone be surprised when more accusations are thrown, just because they like or respect the targets of that accusation? How can you muster the outrage now on thread 8?

Addendum: Added Bishop in as I'd meant to in the first place.

Alright boys and girls, I’ve had a lot of long talks with a lot of people. Yes, there are arguments on both sides and to put it bluntly--both sides are acting like jackasses. That said, let’s take it from the top.

I have been writing for CGL since the launch of the SRM 02 Missions campaign, after being recruited by John Dunn. I wrote several Missions and jumped in as a pinch hitter several times when project slipped. That experience is what brought me into the full freelancer team in the summer of 2006. I worked on several projects, with small sections and lurked in the freelancer forums. There were a lot of problems with payment--both in the Missions team with getting comp copies sent out in a timely fashion and as a freelancer. (To give you an example, I was paid in February of this year for a contract that was due in 2008.)

Many of the freelancers talk with each other frequently, and that builds friendships. We see each other at conventions and hang out, which strengthens those bonds. I visited friends in Seattle in late December of 2009 and January 2010 as I was in the process of moving up to Seattle. During those visits, several very loud discussions happened in front of me. Heather and Loren Coleman met with David Stansel-Garner, and the three of them had a knockdown-dragout fight in front of me over the financial irregularities. After it was clear that none of them had any intention of asking me to leave while they aired their dirty laundry, I excused myself. Three rooms away through closed doors, I could still hear them. (I brought these concerns up to Jason Hardy in an email on January 6th.)

Around this same time, after hearing that several of the authors on projects that I had worked on were pulling copyright to get paid, I stood in solidarity with them and withheld my copyright.

It became clear to me that for IMR/CGL to continue to thrive, they needed to completely restructure their business. Jennifer Harding had come in and was laying down the groundwork for a financial reset. I was in the market for a job, so I wrote a job description and sold myself to the Director’s team--Randall Bills, Brent Evans, Loren Coleman, and David Stansel-Garner. To stay afloat, they were going to need to have someone who stepped away from the creative process which they were entangled in and managed the calendar and timelines.

After David and Jennifer left, I stayed on because I had a job to do. That week, Loren, Randall, and Brent sat down with me and asked straight out if I was able to stay on with them or if my personal relationships would get in the way. When I am at work, I am working--at home, I am relaxing. The two spheres should never interact. Throughout my professional career, I have had colleagues and professional acquaintances that worked for competitors in the industry.

To be crystal clear--CGL knew that I was an author and acknowledged my right to pull copyright, without it impacting my professional integrity. CGL knew that I had friendships with people that had chosen to leave the company, without it impacting my professional integrity. When I left CGL, I had been offered a project management job--the career I had before coming to CGL. When I left CGL, I continued to assist the director team with items for their internal systems for 30 days afterwards and gave a complete passdown of all projects, verbally and in writing to all of the necessary officers.

To call me a spy is degrading. I have kept my peace and not shared all of the information that I have--not because of an NDA (as I do not have one) but because of my own choice to not drag the professional part of my life into the personal (my time on the forums). Please do not imagine to understand my choices or my actions.

Because some people have a history of co-mingling funds, and not paying freelancers. Others do not have such a history.

A lot of cases in court are decided because you believe one side over the other. That means the judge picks what statements he or she trusts (which is not the same as picking who he or she would trust).

In this case, some statements just are more convincing, and fit what facts we know better.

Actually while I don't presume for Swedish courts but a lot of American court cases are decided by a little thing called evidence. Testimony is entered even in an expert role or eye witness to events but at least from a structured standpoint it's given to some level of doubt. But I do not know many who would characterize many many anonymous forum postings as coming within light years of testimony.

Basically one side in your eyes especially Fuchs is laboring under a presumption of guilt, the other innocence. I still believe in innocent until proven guilty for ALL parties.

So, uh, Lurker and Fuch's. It's pretty obvious you two aren't going to agree on anything. Maybe you could just, like, you know, stop responding to each other and stuff? Course, if you're enjoying this, then by all means, continue...

QFT

I was going to make an ironic statement about relative values of discourse and some things about arguments repeated without contradiction becoming true. Then I saw that your post got QFT'd and it's oddly unnecessary. One waste of bits serves at least as well as commentary on that waste of bits.

I believe I've asked this before, but it seems like a good time to ask it again. I realize this thread has the word "speculation" in its title, but it would seem to be in the best interests of everyone to avoid speculating about the motives of others, especially when they have a very limited knowledge of what those others might have done and in which circumstances. As we're seeing, it's unfair and leads to understandably hurt feelings. The situation is difficult enough as is, and I don't think it gets any better when people cast aspersions on one another through speculation. I've specifically asked people in other threads to avoid questioning the motives of those who left Catalyst, since it's difficult for outsiders to understand their decision. I'd like to repeat that request.

Jason H.

What I am saying is that you get used to picking statements apart, and decide what is plausible and what is less plausible. And some statements here just look more plausible than others, especially given what we do know (which was admitted by both sides, for example).

Exactly.

Actually, you are questioning my ethics. To whit, from your post (or someone who has the same alias as you):

"It certainly dovetails with suspicions that I have had for a long time now, namely that the people calling for Truth and Justice in this mess are actually using that as a cover to pursue their own self-interests. At the very least, it makes one very suspicious of Jennifer Harding's oft-cited claims of malfeasance, beyond the usual "axe-grinding" argument. It also suggests that Stanel-Garner taking all of CGL's financial info with him on his computer was motivated by more than just spite."


So, again, for the record - David didn't take all of CGL's financial info with him on his computer.
At the time I left CGL, I had not heard of, nor been approached by, Sandstorm in regards to joining a new company. At the time I left CGL, my "self-interest" was to find a position with a company that I could trust, that would pay the bills and give me some amount of personal fulfillment in my career choice.

It seems to me the familiar saying about not attributing to malice what can be attributed to incompetence comes to mind. Or to put it another way, both sides seem to have elaborate theories about conspiracy and evil intent behind actions that are just as possible as a result of mistakes and inattention.

Hiring people you know and trust is just good business sense. Making contact with partners who make good product but might not be happy with the current partner also makes sense as well. It might be an example of why companies try to get people to sign non-compete clauses as part of their contracts, but I don't particularly like the idea of such clauses. If IMR were keeping up with amounts owed to partners, they probably wouldn't have to worry about those partners getting wooed away or purchased by others.

While nothing is official yet, Sandstorm could be a good match for both WildFire and Post Human. There'd be some history among the people already; while being a startup, Sandstorm has people with knowledge about the publishing end and online retail; and likely enough financial backing to get a start with known properties.

For what it's worth, I hope that IMR sorts out its issues and Sandstorm finds its niche.

Jen, for better or for worse, you have deeply interjected yourself into this debate by making specific accusations, namely that Coleman was not paying royalties to Topps and that Randall went along with it. Pretty much everybody on this board is grasping for straws to try to piece together a situation for which there is very little factual information, so that accusation is like a lightning rod. To my knowledge, you are the only one in a position to know who has come out and made such a direct and damning statement, so that kind of puts you in the hot seat. You may not like it, but if you are going to make those kinds of statements, I reserve the right to have my suspicions and to engage in a little scrutiny. Claims coming from a former employee are very different than claims coming from someone working for a direct competitor. So until I can get confirmation on that issue one way or another, yeah, I am suspicious.

As to the DSG/computer issue, yes I should have made clear that it was an alleged action, and not a confirmed one. My apologies to DSG.

I really like what I'm seeing on Sandstorm's About Us page. Taking care of the business end of things so that member studios can focus on being creative is a great idea. Sort of hits at the root of what is going on at IMR. I wish them the best of luck and I hope to see more information soon.

Hand tipped? I'm sure someone with more time than me can pour over the last seven of these threads and pick out the user who repeatedly harped on this. On the other hand, maybe that's a common CGL apologist talking point (it's not like they have many outside of insinuation and semantics).

Hey, for a second let's assume it's all true: Some freelancers conspired with some office staff to take the licenses away from someone who "misappropriated funds" while failing to pay the bills.

The horror...the horror...

After acquiring the license, their diabolical plan is to run both properties straight into the ground. The first bullet point is probably "Tell everyone who ever worked for CGL in any fashion to go right to hell" with the second being "Put writers of Star Trek slash fiction in charge of everything".

And as to the name: Sandstorm?! Who doesn't associate that with "DEEP HURTING!"

We're on the other side of the looking glass, people.

I'll say the same thing I've said since the first CGL Speculation thread (and you can dig it back up in the old ones if you want). I would write for Shadowrun again, if the license were in the hands of a competent company who puts out good product and has a respectful, professional relationship with its freelancers that includes timely contracts and payments. It's safe to say that right now I am not writing for Shadowrun because I don't feel those conditions exist.

What company writes the check doesn't matter to me. It's all about the professionalism and competence.

As for some staff/freelancer conspiracy to take over the license? If it even exists, so what? I know if I felt the license was being misused and I had an opportunity to try to correct those problems by getting the license, I'd do it. I'm not in any position to do that (I like my financial savings just where they are, thank you) but I would not fault anyone for it. Quite the opposite: if their intentions are to correct mishandling and alleged abuse, I wish them all the luck in the world.

Out of curiosity, why?

For the same reason Amare Stoudemire was an idiot for calling L.O.'s 19 & 19 night "lucky": you want your opponent to be overconfident (and bid low). At least, that's how it works in my business. Anyone with gaming industry experience?